Preach the Constitution

[Tribunal]

How many of you openly preach the Constitution, or constitutionalism, to your family, friends, neighbors, and fellow ward members? What have been the responses? What can we do better?

[lundbaek]

For having preached the responsibility of Latter-day Saints to the US Constitution and its preservation I am considered the ward self-appointed political commissar. But as Speedracer noted, my attitude and demeanour has left quite a bit to be desired. Just in our ward, about 2 years ago I spoke specifically on that subject, and since then I have found and taken opportunities to plug the subject in the occasional testimony meeting. I have also suggested to our stake president and seperately to both of his counsellors that this subject be given at least a couple of minutes in a stake conference and/or sacrament meetings. Those suggestion were rejected, but all of a sudden on Sunday 3 July our stake allowed a fireside on "Principles of Freedom", and this Sunday (tomorrow) is a fireside on "The Book of Mormon, the Constitution, and You" for the stake singles group. Will wonders ever cease ? I have outlined some of my own activities on the "To be among the enlightened" thread. And I know some forum members have contributed greatly to this overall effort in their own ways.

Here comes my attitude and demeanour thru again. But I don't suggest anything like this I haven't done myself. I challenge each of you to testify the first Sunday in August, or more appropriately i the first Sunday in September (Constitution Day is 17 September) something like :
The Lord Jesus Christ established His Church on this land in these latter-days by the hands of wise men whom He raised up unto this very purpose. But He also established earlier another institution by the hands of wise men whom He raised up unto that very purpose. To those who respect their divinity, certain passages of scriptures in the Book of Mormon, in the Doctrine and Covenants, and the words of many latter-day prophets and apostles make it clear that the Lord the establishment of the United States of America, and also the blueprint for its government, namely the Constitution of the United States. In addition, from these same sources we learn of the vital importance of defending, upholding and adhering to the Constitution, we learn that the Constitution is intended to become the governing system for the whole world, and from certain latter-day prophets and apostles we have been warned that Americans have apostatized in various ways from the original Constitution. We Latter-day Saints are the only people who have been given this information directly from the Lord. We have the greatest responsibility of any people to the Constitution that the Lord gave us, to its preservation, and as the case is now, to its restoration.

Try that and maybe your ward will give you an official calling as the ward political commisssar.

[jeanpierre]

It looks to me like most members of the LDS Church are unaware of the significance of the US Constitution and freedom in general to our religion. Some I have spoken with think it out of order, and even "going against the Brethren", to "preach the Constitution" while the Prophet, First Presidency and Apostles are not preaching it.

[mes5464]

I would love to give a talk on the Constitution in Sacrament meeting but with assigned topics, I don't ever see that happening.

[lundbaek]

Several weeks ago now another member of our ward suggested to our bishop that he give a talk on the sacrament Sunday closest to Independence Day about how the Lord established America and the Constitution. The bishop agreed to 20 minutes, the counsellor conducting that Sunday tried to cut it down to 10 minutes and asked him to "tone it down". He took 20 minutes and gave an enlightening talk entitled "America the Promised Land - What Price Freedom" What with Constitution Day coming up on 17 September, here's a chance to at least make the suggestion.

[Vision]

I'm 1st counselor in a Bishopric.

We have a gentlemen in our Ward that we asked to speak on the 10th of July. He is a well read, well studied Man in his 60's. The Bishop asked me what topic I thought would be good for him and I said something to do with the Constitution, Liberty, etc. He schrunched his face funny and said why would we want to hear about that?

So we had another talk about Faith.........zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

But, the next week I was assigned the thought for Bishopric meeting, it was on the Constitution and how it is a divinely inspired document

[NoGreaterLove]

You guys would have been proud of me. I gave my sacrament talk on the assignment of preserving our liberty and freedoms two Sundays ago. I gave it on the "title of liberty" The true meaning. Needless to say it was only my third week in this ward and I will probably never be called upon to talk in sacrament again.

[Songbird]

I'm 1st counselor in a Bishopric.

We have a gentlemen in our Ward that we asked to speak on the 10th of July. He is a well read, well studied Man in his 60's. The Bishop asked me what topic I thought would be good for him and I said something to do with the Constitution, Liberty, etc. He schrunched his face funny and said why would we want to hear about that?

So we had another talk about Faith.........zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

But, the next week I was assigned the thought for Bishopric meeting, it was on the Constitution and how it is a divinely inspired document

Good for you!

[Songbird]

You guys would have been proud of me. I gave my sacrament talk on the assignment of preserving our liberty and freedoms two Sundays ago. I gave it on the "title of liberty" The true meaning. Needless to say it was only my third week in this ward and I will probably never be called upon to talk in sacrament again.

I see this as a great suggestion to make for the talk. September 17. I will make the suggestion to the BP

[jeanpierre]

I has been suggested that the Church leadership, specifically the First Presidency and the 12 will not overtly promote the principles of liberty and the Constitution until after the so-called cleansing of America. It seems the Lord is keeping a lid on this subject, and the only reason I can think of for this silence is to protect the Church organization and members from attack by those determined to destroy America as a sovereign nation. I read an email recently quoting a member of a stake presidency that stated his belief that to promote something ....this is what he wrote: "Also, it seems to me that militancy on a particular issue, when the Prophet is not militant on that issue, is basically a difference with the Prophet. Sounds dangerous." In the 1991 edition of the Church publication "Prindiples of the Gospel" it states "Unless we as members of the Church do all we can to preserve the freedoms we have, within the bounds of the laws of God, we will be held accountble." On another page it states: "The Constitution was established through the inspiration of God to preserve the liberty of the people and to maintain his promise." Obviously, something has changed, and it seems changed without formal notification to the general membership thaat I know of. I can only guess that the Lord has given up on us as concerns protecting our liberty, at least for now.

[GregoryR]

Considering the unrighteous state of the world I believe that the constitution has upheld our ability to preach the gospel to this point. As the constitution continues to disintegrtate the brethren, under the guidance of the Lord, are not being overtly opposed to the assult on this inspired document to allow the harvest of souls to continue. The time is not far distant that the Church will be required to take a political stance in the interest of self preservation. We have been taught correct principles. It is up to us to be watchful and politically active. Do not suppose for one minute that the Lord is not able to call us to arms or action. The title of Liberty will be raised again in our day.

[Tribunal]

I think many of our church leaders also need to be educated. When the leadership openly shows support for a national marriage amendment (a violation of the Constitution), openly shows support against immigration enforcement (another violation of the Constitution), and then announces that leaders shall not show support for political issues...

I blame all the ignorance on public education!

[Matthew.B]

You guys would have been proud of me. I gave my sacrament talk on the assignment of preserving our liberty and freedoms two Sundays ago. I gave it on the "title of liberty" The true meaning. Needless to say it was only my third week in this ward and I will probably never be called upon to talk in sacrament again.

+ 10. :ymapplause:

[Matthew.B]

I think many of our church leaders also need to be educated. When the leadership openly shows support for a national marriage amendment (a violation of the Constitution), openly shows support against immigration enforcement (another violation of the Constitution), and then announces that leaders shall not show support for political issues...

Be careful not to think yourself capable of "righting the Ark of GOD"...

I think jeanpierre has it right. The Church is in a sticky spot right now, and the leaders of the Church are using their knowledge of what's coming to keep us members as safe as possible.

[davedan]

The Tea Party is encouraging us to stand up and fight for freedom and for Constitutional values. Both sides would love the civil war that would result from a repeal of Gov Welfare Services. I am all in support of the Constitution, but these Constitutional issues are not at the heart and foundation of our problem as a nation.

The first step in the enemies plan of ideological subversion was demoralization. Therefore, the only way we can save the Constitution is to preach repentance and regain our morality as a nation. A moral people would have much less need for Gov entitlements.

[mes5464]

The Tea Party is encouraging us to stand up and fight for freedom and for Constitutional values. Both sides would love the civil war that would result from a repeal of Gov Welfare Services. I am all in support of the Constitution, but these Constitutional issues are not at the heart and foundation of our problem as a nation.

The first step in the enemies plan of ideological subversion was demoralization. Therefore, the only way we can save the Constitution is to preach repentance and regain our morality as a nation. A moral people would have much less need for Gov entitlements.

Very true.

[Tribunal]

I think many of our church leaders also need to be educated. When the leadership openly shows support for a national marriage amendment (a violation of the Constitution), openly shows support against immigration enforcement (another violation of the Constitution), and then announces that leaders shall not show support for political issues...

Be careful not to think yourself capable of "righting the Ark of GOD"...

I think jeanpierre has it right. The Church is in a sticky spot right now, and the leaders of the Church are using their knowledge of what's coming to keep us members as safe as possible.

I would never attempt to "right the Ark of God". And I believe it is much more than just keeping us safe.

Almost every leader (relief society presidents, elders quorum presidents, bishops, and stake presidents) that I've spoken with, and friends of mine have spoken with, calls our system of government a 'democracy'. Almost every leader that I've spoken with, and friends of mine have spoken with, welcome illegal immigration into the United States, and Utah. I've even had a stake president tell me the illegal immigrants are coming to the United States for the Gospel. Almost every leader that I've spoken with, and friends of mine have spoken with, want members to tone down their opinions and speech of the Constitution, and constitutionalism. I don't believe these men, and a few women, intentionally oppose a republican form of government, the Constitution, and constitutionalism. I believe these men, and a few women, are ignorant because we have an ignorant culture.

[Original_Intent]

I think many of our church leaders also need to be educated. When the leadership openly shows support for a national marriage amendment (a violation of the Constitution), openly shows support against immigration enforcement (another violation of the Constitution), and then announces that leaders shall not show support for political issues...

Be careful not to think yourself capable of "righting the Ark of GOD"...

I think jeanpierre has it right. The Church is in a sticky spot right now, and the leaders of the Church are using their knowledge of what's coming to keep us members as safe as possible.

I would never attempt to "right the Ark of God". And I believe it is much more than just keeping us safe.

Almost every leader (relief society presidents, elders quorum presidents, bishops, and stake presidents) that I've spoken with, and friends of mine have spoken with, calls our system of government a 'democracy'. Almost every leader that I've spoken with, and friends of mine have spoken with, welcome illegal immigration into the United States, and Utah. I've even had a stake president tell me the illegal immigrants are coming to the United States for the Gospel. Almost every leader that I've spoken with, and friends of mine have spoken with, want members to tone down their opinions and speech of the Constitution, and constitutionalism. I don't believe these men, and a few women, intentionally oppose a republican form of government, the Constitution, and constitutionalism. I believe these men, and a few women, are ignorant because we have an ignorant culture.

Well, Tribunal, sorry to "get up in your grill", but since you threw out the "ignorant" label, let me take this opportunity to educate you, and perhaps you will next time make sure that you have the beam out of your own eye before you are too critical of anyone else's ignorance.

When the leadership openly shows support for a national marriage amendment (a violation of the Constitution),

oh boy. I guess you don't get that if the proper amendment process is followed, it then BECOMES constitutional. 8-| What is unconstitutional is when the constitution is IGNORED as most in Washington DC currently do. However, to state that supporting an amendment to the constitution is unconstitutional is, well, ignorant.

openly shows support against immigration enforcement (another violation of the Constitution),

Do you know the difference between immigration and naturalization? Now, I will cut you some slack, because we have all been educated to think that the federal government is in charge of immigration, because they are in charge of "defending our borders from invasion", and there have actually been unchallenged precedents set that have kind of made that a tradition. But the truth is that according to the constitution (which is your concern) the federal government's role is ONLY in deciding who to confer CITIZENSHIP to. Each state actually could allow NON-CITIZEN's to immigrate, own land, have businesses, and each state could set their own rules as to who could immigrate and live within their state. Which if you understand the original intent of the constitution, makes a lot of sense. The federal government set the rules of obtaining citizenship, but the states determined who could live in their state. Of course, all U.S. citizens were welcome in any state, but there was actually a wide variety of rules from state to state regarding which non-citizens and how many were allowed to immigrate each year. So again, the church advocating for the state to be welcoming of NON-CITIZEN immigrants is actually not in discord with the Constitution. However, the Federal role has grown over the years and it is true, due to OUR IGNORANCE, we pretty much expect the federal government to fill this role. Oh yes, back to the protecting from invasion - the original intent was that in times of war it was a federal duty to protect our borders. "Invasion" actually meant a military action, not the common slang usage that we currently give the word.

and then announces that leaders shall not show support for political issues..

actually, I believe they were told not to support particular candidates or parties, and this only applied to high level authorities in the church (that it could be inferred that their support implied official church support). I also am not aware that those leaders were told not to support political issues. But I could be wrong on that.

I am in full agreement with you on people ignorantly believing we are a democracy (the founders despised democracy as a form of government.) I am right there with you on some leaders wanting people to "tone it down" regarding the constitution, liberty, etc.

I realize you are probably going to disagree, and justify, and defend the points that I addressed above. It can be so easy to throw around the ignorance label - the biggest problem in overcoming ignorance is recognizing it in ourselves - we are just wired that if we have one perception, and we see someone else with a different perception, that it is due to lack of understanding on their part (otherwise we would have to change our own paradigm, and I think "The Matrix" illustrated quite well how hard that is!)

Anyway, sorry for the bluntness - something I need to work on.

[Tribunal]

Wrong! The Constitution is intended to define and limit the powers on the federal government, not define a social institution. When government defines something by law it can then change the meaning by changing the law. The government has no role in marriage whether its the definition or enforcement of it. Government should not even have the power to define the privileges of marriage. Leave that to the people - and the church.

If our government decides to run away with the amendment process then the Constitution will become meaningless. The amendment process was intended to define the Constitution, not challenge a court decision or control a social issue.

I know the difference between immigration and naturalization, and what this stake president was promoting was denouncing immigration enforcement. This is not in the Constitution - unless its an invasion.

Our nation does have the power to defend its borders from invasion (of any kind) which is kind of what is happening. It doesn't matter if the people wear uniforms or not. It doesn't matter if the people are armed or not. People from another nation are crossing the borders of the United States to acquire the resources and tax-payer benefits of the United States. The federal government has produced so many social programs (benefits) that many foreign nationals want to enjoy the wealth. This is also not in the Constitution. The federal government needs to get out of the business of providing social benefits and just follow the Constitution.

Actually I think I'm wrong about our church leaders support of political issues. I'm going to have to check on that.

[wiser2]

However, the Federal role has grown over the years and it is true, due to OUR IGNORANCE, we pretty much expect the federal government to fill this role. Oh yes, back to the protecting from invasion - the original intent was that in times of war it was a federal duty to protect our borders.

I appreciate your education about the Constitution. In addition, the 10th amendment actually made it illegal for the federal government to usurp the states' rights to determine who can reside in a state. Except, the 14th amendment put the constraint on the states that they must not discriminate.

Yes, the use of the word "invasion" is a propaganda stunt, not unlike the use of vermin for Jews, or fetus for baby.

[wiser2]

Wrong! The Constitution is intended to define and limit the powers on the federal government, not define a social institution.

I agree with you that the role of government should not be to define a social institution. But, the Constitution seems to disagree with you, at least partially, concerning its intent. Consider, "in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution..." You will notice that "Union", "domestic Tranquility", and "general welfare", are all related to a social institution.

The government has no role in marriage whether its the definition or enforcement of it.

You have tripped over one of the few things I believe government ever should do - enforce agreements. In addition, I believe that as a nation, we have made a critical mistake in allowing the "no-fault divorce", where one of the most important agreements is considered unenforceable. The natural consequences are significant, leaving us very internally rotten, and weak.

The only other role that I believe the government should play is that of moral laws - things like murder, adultery, theft, protecting the vulnerable, etc. Interestingly, the definition and enforcement of marriage falls under that role as well. Which leaves me wondering, in you opinion, what is a valid government role, if it does not include enforcing agreements, and moral laws?

I know the difference between immigration and naturalization, and what this stake president was promoting was denouncing immigration enforcement.

Which I think goes to the point. The Constitution gives the federal government the ability to control naturalization, but prohibits it from controlling immigration in the 10th amendment, beyond a $10 tax. Many people that I have spoken with, conveniently equate immigration to naturalization in order to argue that the federal government should oppress immigrants. Obviously, the educated would not make that mistake, yet it appeared that you did, in that you complained that immigration would be allowed.

Our nation does have the power to defend its borders from invasion (of any kind) which is kind of what is happening.

Actually, I think that we are internally rotten enough that our nation does not have the power to defend itself. 3 Nephi 20 addresses some of that, I believe. For example, Christ threatens us that if we don't repent for having oppressed the "indians" that we will be destroyed (like a lion among sheep). I believe that our nation's rejection of Christ and His Golden Rule, and our lust after drugs will likely implement that destruction. The interesting point, is your approach to immigrants is a major factor in justifying Christ to destroy us. You may argue that Christ is wrong, but He claims that this land is the "indians'", and that "we" are the invaders, and that we will pay.

[aikidoka]

I do remember the days when patriotic messages such as the constitution was preached in sacrement meeting. seems like the church doesnt do that much anymore, seems like things have moved towards a global view, maybe dont wanna upset members outside the u.s.. seems like folks are more worried about being p.c. than remembering the great inspired men who made the restoration possible.

[Tribunal]

I agree with you that the role of government should not be to define a social institution. But, the Constitution seems to disagree with you, at least partially, concerning its intent. Consider, "in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution..." You will notice that "Union", "domestic Tranquility", and "general welfare", are all related to a social institution.

Wrong! You are using modern definitions for "union, domestic tranquility, and general welfare". You seem to be associating union, domestic tranquility, and general welfare to social(ist) programs when, according to the Founding Fathers, those terms meant united, peace, and the common good of the people. The Founding Fathers were not socialists and did not even concieve of social programs. Their plan was for us to be free, not slaves. When applying definitions to words and terms in our Constitution read what the Founders actually said and do some research into the context of their statements.

You have tripped over one of the few things I believe government ever should do - enforce agreements. In addition, I believe that as a nation, we have made a critical mistake in allowing the "no-fault divorce", where one of the most important agreements is considered unenforceable. The natural consequences are significant, leaving us very internally rotten, and weak.

The only other role that I believe the government should play is that of moral laws - things like murder, adultery, theft, protecting the vulnerable, etc. Interestingly, the definition and enforcement of marriage falls under that role as well. Which leaves me wondering, in you opinion, what is a valid government role, if it does not include enforcing agreements, and moral laws?

Marriage is a contract. If there is a breach of that contract then the parties can settle the dispute in court. There does not need to be a constitutional amendment defining the contract or giving government powers to enforce 'their' definition of it. The terms of marriage should be open to the participants or the church.

Which I think goes to the point. The Constitution gives the federal government the ability to control naturalization, but prohibits it from controlling immigration in the 10th amendment, beyond a $10 tax. Many people that I have spoken with, conveniently equate immigration to naturalization in order to argue that the federal government should oppress immigrants. Obviously, the educated would not make that mistake, yet it appeared that you did, in that you complained that immigration would be allowed.

I agree. Naturalization should not be confused with immigration. Problem is we have politicians who are educated with modern terminology and the media promotes ignorance.

Actually, I think that we are internally rotten enough that our nation does not have the power to defend itself. 3 Nephi 20 addresses some of that, I believe. For example, Christ threatens us that if we don't repent for having oppressed the "indians" that we will be destroyed (like a lion among sheep). I believe that our nation's rejection of Christ and His Golden Rule, and our lust after drugs will likely implement that destruction. The interesting point, is your approach to immigrants is a major factor in justifying Christ to destroy us. You may argue that Christ is wrong, but He claims that this land is the "indians'", and that "we" are the invaders, and that we will pay.

I totally agree with you, and I agree with Christ.

I believe that, historically, what our nation has done with Native Americans is immoral and even criminal.

The problem our nation now faces is we've created an entitlement monster and our politicians use entitlements to gain votes, to gain political favors, and to gain power. We've allowed this mess to happen and now we have millions and millions of people coming into this nation to take advantange of those entitlements, and they now have the votes, and they now have the power. This has caused people who have no allegiance to the state they live in, or to the United States, or to the Constitution, to come to the US for the entitlements, at the expense of the citizens, and tax payers.

[JohnnyL]

You guys would have been proud of me. I gave my sacrament talk on the assignment of preserving our liberty and freedoms two Sundays ago. I gave it on the "title of liberty" The true meaning. Needless to say it was only my third week in this ward and I will probably never be called upon to talk in sacrament again.

Hey, maybe I'll try that.

[Doc Jensen]

Couple of things bother me about certain members, first is that there are many members who do not believe in the 2nd amendment and it's importance. Second thing is that the Constitution was vital to the formation of our church, without Father in Heaven and the inspiration He gave to the Founding Fathers we would never even have heard of the LDS Church. So yes whenever I get a chance I remind my brothers and sisters of the importance and divinity of the Constitution.